‘Oz’ Wizardry Powers Great $150.2M Global: $80.3M Domestic Is 2013’s First Huge Weekend And Third Highest March Debut

SUNDAY AM, 6TH UPDATE: Disney‘s 3D wizardry Oz The Great And Powerful was magic for the U.S. and Canadian box office just like advance tracking showed it would be. Little wonder that the studio has gone into development of a first sequel and expects this new franchise to spin off not just films but mucho merchandising and park attractions for years to come. All after naysayers said no one could mess with a classic like The Wizard Of Oz. The $215M-costing Sam Raimi-directed fantasy was by far the biggest domestic film debut of what has been a disappointing 2013 start for Hollywood pics and opened to the third biggest March. It scored an $80.3M domestic debut – it isn’t even a holiday weekend. Overseas it made a good but not great $69.9M but that’s still a giant $150.2M worldwide. Reviews were lukewarm but a “B+” CinemaScore from audiences helped word of mouth so domestic grosses increased +25% from Friday to Saturday’s $33M for the all-important family fare bump. And that’s even with Friday’s $24.1M including $2 million from select theaters in Thursday pre-midnights and Friday post-midnights. (Friday’s early matinees also were ahead of Universal’s megahit toon Lorax.) Sunday’s gross is an estimated $23.1M. Disney played live-action Oz in traditional 2D, as well as Disney Digital 3D, RealD 3D and IMAX 3D formats. Of all filmgoers, 3D formats drew 54% and 2D 46%. In North America, audience exit polling showed that moviegoers over 25 years old made up 55% while under 25 were 45%. Couples comprised 48%, families 35%, and teens 17%. Females outnumbered males 52% to 48%. The studio ensured its TV ads for PG-rated Oz were omnipresent as part of a $100M marketing spend and mirrored the colorful chaos of those for its 2010 Alice In Wonderland mega-hit. Oz even released the same weekend as Alice. But that Tim Burton pic offered not only worldwide star Johnny Depp but also one of the first truly rich 3D experiences and scored a $116 million domestic debut and went on to earn a superb $1 billion worldwide, making 2/3s of its money overseas. This Oz wizardry was less appealing with James Franco who struggles to open box office solo. Whether this pic earns back its hefty cost depends largely on overseas grosses – and I’ve been warning that the Land Of Oz is not the globally familiar place in literature Wonderland was and is.

Oz released day and date in 80% of the international marketplace. It began with Russia, Germany, Australia, Korea and Italy on Thursday, and then Friday expanded into a total 46 territories, including UK, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Brazil. Talent and filmmakers did a global press tour across 8 major markets which helped Russia become the lead market with $15M followed by the UK ($5.7M), Mexico ($5.1M), Australia ($5.0M), and Germany ($4.2M).

For IMAX, the domestic performance of Disney’s Oz delivered a robust $8.2M on 307 screens, second best for its March 3D titles. IMAX’s international box office on 135 screens hit $4Ml for the weekend, setting a new record for a March opening. The Fri-Sun result in Russia was a territory 3-day record of $1.4M (per screen of $50K). IMAX’s global weekend gross for Oz is an estimated $12.2M from 442 digital only screens, which is a second-best for a March opening (bested only by Alice In Wonderland‘s extraordinary performance in 2010)..

Recent Comments

News not that good at all, the movie production budget including advertisement & Co. was about $...

intheknow

2 years

That is simply bullshit- yes foreign weighs in heavy- but a bomb in the US market is...

Alan B

2 years

And Tim Burton is no Tim Burton anymore, either. What's your point?

Meanwhile, FilmDistrict’s R-rated action thriller Dead Man Downalso opened but to an anemic first weekend of $5.3M from 2,188 theaters. FilmDistrict acquired the U.S. rights from IM Global, Original Film, and Frequency Films for no minimum guarantee and had a P&A backstop. Marketed to an adult audience with a focus on urban and ethnic moviegoers, the film grossed on the low end of expectations. That despite the trailer debuting on Django Unchained and promos highlighting director Niels Arden Oplev who helmed the original The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo also starring Noomi Rapace. This is yet another loser for Colin Farrell who continues to demonstrate he can’t open a movie. Pic was scripted by J.H. Wyman and earned a ‘B-‘ CinemaScore from audiences who were 60% male and 40% female and 75% aged 25 and older.

So Oz faced no competition at this weekend’s cineplex, especially after Warner Bros’ Jack The Giant Slayer (another $200M budgetbuster) bombed last weekend and fell apart this one. And DreamWorks Animation’s family toon The Croods doesn’t open until March 22nd. Expectedly, the Disney marketing machine was in high gear for its witches/wizards and put together a really spectacular campaign that worked. Tracking services stayed steady in the weeks leading up to release with the pic expected to earn from the $70sM to $80sM even with box office down significantly since Christmas/New Year. A high-profile Super Bowl spot with Disney online homepage takeover, followed by digital takeovers on Moviefone, Fandango, IMDb, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) and presence in major broadcast events like the Academy Awards, Rockin’ New Year’s Eve, and Rose Parade did the trick. Trailers accompanied 2012 blockbusters while the world premiere was held February 13th at Disney’s El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood followed by international premieres in Tokyo, Moscow, London, and Paris. Talent and filmmakers were out in force in support of the film, with appearances across daytime and late-night, print media (10+ cover stories), an E! movie special that aired March 7, and exclusive screenings and special events including Comic-Con (featuring buzzed-about Hall H panel and footage debut), CinemaCon and Daytona 500 (with James Franco serving as Grand Marshal). And end-credit song “Almost Home” by Mariah Carey released February 19th via Island Def Jam while the music video directed by longtime Carey collaborator David LaChapelle debuted on American Idol. in terms of innovation, Google Chrome Experiment “Find Your Way to Oz” designed by Disney and Google created an immersive experience and included an unprecedented Google homepage takeover on February 7th. The “Journey to Oz” Balloon Tour, sponsored by HSN and IMAX, launched February 12 while Disney theme park integrations included an exclusive 8-minute 4D sneak peek of the film throughout March and a large-scale Oz garden with entry portal, carnival area, and Yellow Brick Road through May 19.

The pre-release pressure on Disney was enormous. First came months of bad buzz. Then Wall Street was understandably nervous about another movie costing $200 million. Some business media even wrote headlines like “Oz The Great And Powerful Could Be Disney’s Next John Carter Flop”. (Granted, tracking is less and less an accurate indicator of actual theatrical performance. But John Carter, which also cost $200M, only opened to $30.1M and made just $73M domestically all-in.) This weekend success for Oz cements director Raimi as the real deal when it comes to helming blockbusters. (After steering the original Spider-Man trilogy from 2002 through 2007, he has made mostly small and modest movies until this budget buster starring Spidey frenemy Franco.) Also the Alice In Wonderland comparisons were daunting. Not only was Oz produced by Alice In Wonderland‘s Joe Roth, but it also used the same visual effects pro and production designer Robert Stromberg. Development spanned no less than 3 Disney studio chiefs – Dick Cook, Rich Ross, and most recently Alan Horn. The latter is claiming credit for the success of Zach Braff as the funny Flying Monkey. (Horn added to the pic’s cost by approving reshoots so that Franco’s sidekick talked all the way through the pic instead of just at the end.) The script, written by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, is inspired by L. Frank Baum’s 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and also the prequel to the 1939 classic film The Wizard of Oz. The story takes place 25 years before Dorothy, the Lion, the Scarecrow or the Tin Man were there. Instead this tale tells how the Wizard got to the Land Of Oz. Since the 1950s, Baum’s 13 Oz sequels have been in the public domain.

159 Comments

jepp022 • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Domestic is hardly the be all these days. Studios now factor in foreign box office receipts – which helps determine whether a movie is a hit or a flop. Hardly anyone in the US goes to the movies these days. No one can afford it.

College Student • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

People in the US can still afford to go to GOOD movies… look at the Oscar noms. Argo, Life of Pi, Django, Silver Linings Playbook, Les Miserables, and Lincoln all grossed 9-figures. Zero Dark Thirty is closing in on $100 million. A number of big budget blockbusters including the third Batman and The Avengers also did quite well last year.

What’s changed is that Americans are no more discerning and would rather sit at home and watch a classic on Netflix than trek out to the theatre to spend $10 on slop like a feature length version of Jack and the Beanstalk or Hansel and Gretel.

College Student • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Should read “Americans are now more discerning”

Tim W. • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Taken 2 made nearly $140 million domestically, last year. The evidence would seem disagree with you.

B- • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Sometimes a silly premise can be a fun Saturday Afternoon Matinee if executed properly. Taken 2 was no more silly than the first one.

It is acceptable to like both Academy caliber films and films made to eventually live a lifetime on Basic Cable.

Anonymous • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

As would the fact that 2012 was a new record for domestic box office. But people who don’t know anything love to post things off the top of their heads as if they know everything.

Doc Michaels • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

And Jerry Lewis movies made lots of dough in France. Who the hell cares?

meh • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Battelship was a domestic flop but global box office made it a hit, with about 75% of revenues coming from overseas. Game, set, match.

Anyome who follows box office revenues has noticed that Americans will flock to a talky intellectual boring fact-based movies like Lincoln but the rest of the world wants fanatsy and explosions.

PS I loved Lincoln, the “boring” comment is sarcastic.

Anonymous • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

@meh: Battleship $200 million overseas? That’s pocket change!

Mark • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

No…they went to see les miserables, an utter mess.

Alex • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

True, I saw less than 10 2012 movies in theaters. The rest of them I rented on Redbox instead. Tired of wasting my money on mediocrity.

Jez • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

It’s only really Americans that will flock to Lincoln and nobody else

Likewise only the British would flock to a Brit film like The Inbetweeners Movie (which they did).

Reggie Van Luster • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

LINCOLN has done $70M+ overseas. Not a global hit, but respectable for a talky movie about some dead guy with a beard.

Ripsnorter • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Not strictly true, Jez. Given the subject matter, director, lead actor as well as supporting cast, ‘Lincoln’ is attracting a decent enough foreign audience. It’s the very parochial U.S-centric films that don’t travel well, although Hollywood has the distribution and marketing muscle to keep pushing them anyway.

‘The Inbetweeners’ is a spin-off from a massively popular UK TV series so was a no-brainer, but its export chances can be filed under Snowball, Chances in Hell. If overseas audiences don’t know the original they are unlikely to see it anyway. And then there is also the humor factor.

John • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

$10! I would kill to pay $10 to see a movie. It’s 14-20 per ticket plus parking with no drinks or snacks. Now factor in my wife and a babysitter, and you get a big screw that. I’ll preorder a digital copy for $19.99 on itunes and watch it on my 50 inch in a few months.

Jay • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

The problem with ticket prices is the big multiplex chains. There’s a little neighborhood theatre in the next town over from mine where they only charge $4.50 on Tuesdays. That’s much more reasonable!

deselby • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

You’re paying $10 to see a spectacle that cost as much as $200M to produce.

How can anybody complain about that?

Manku • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Either you live in NYC (which you probably don’t, since you mention parking) or you’re not shopping smart.

You can buy vouchers for all the major chains (here in LA – AMC, Pacific, Regal to name a few)…I bought AMC Gold (good for all movies) for $6.00 each. You have to pay surcharge for 3D or IMAX, but I rarely go to those. Parking is free at the locations I use. I never buy popcorn or soda. It’s a few miles from my house, and I drive a Prius so gas costs less than a buck.

Personally, going to movies the way I do, I think it’s the best value in entertainment in the USA. I pay virtually the same as I did 30 years ago (growing up in NYC)…what other form of entertainment can you say that about. Plus with stadium seating, reserved seating and improved sound systems its a MUCH better experience. Yes, we have people texting, but people have always talked in theatres.

Bob • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

All depends on where you live. I live near a medium-sized city and the top ticket price (Regal) is $9.50, matinees are $7.50.

Mary • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

We can’t wait to see it this weekend!

Tommy Larson • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Congratulations to Rich Ross and team!

Ned • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

You know if you can’t afford to buy a $17 ticket(which is IMAX 3d midnights in a big city) then you can’t afford a lot of things. It costs less to take one person out to the movies then it does to eat at a decent restaurant. It’s just all the fat idiots out there who think they need concessions which are usually $8 or more for one person. This is why America has a high obesity rate people can’t go 2 hours without stuffing there face. Going to the movies is still a relatively cheap form of entertainment.

MexyMartini • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

There/they’re/their

Some folks stuff their faces, while others cannot grasp grade school grammar.

orlando • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

@jepp022-2012 was a record breaking year for the box office, not just worldwide but domestically as well. 31 films reached 100 million last year, 11 of them reached 200m, five of them 300m and three of them 400m. So i would slow down a liitle on the demise of the domestic box office captain. Of course the box office has been terrible so far in 2013, so we’ll soon find out if ‘Oz’ is indeed the first ‘Real’ mega box office smash of the year.

Right… And attendance was no better than it was in 1997. Stop looking at the dollar signs and try looking at actual stats that matter.

Marvin • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

“Domestic is hardly the be-all these days, studios now factor in foreign box office receipts-” Wow, what an insight! Are you a time traveler from the 1890’s! It never ceases to amaze me what morons troll these box office posts.

Dack Rouleau • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

“Hardly anyone in the US goes to movies anymore”

I really wish people would stop combining pompous disdain with gross inaccuracies. It makes for nauseating reading. Nikki is biased, but at least she calls a hit a hit.

Bob • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

This weekend’s estimated gross was $140+ Million. At an average of $10 per ticket (yes, that’s right, we all don’t live in high-priced NYC and LA), that makes about 14 million people seeing a movie over a 3-day period. I wouldn’t call that “Hardly anyone…” for the second weekend of March.

intheknow • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

That is simply bullshit- yes foreign weighs in heavy- but a bomb in the US market is deadly- like JACK???? ….OZ is doing well because its a beautifully acted, directed and crafted film- with endless possibilities to continue on and on…and Franco and the ladies are terrific…now if you want o view crap- go see the Lone Ranger…..Depp as an Indian- LETS GET THE PICKET LINES GOING NOW!

Shy • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I don’t believe it will get to 80 millions. It looks just as boring as Jack

Wilbur Whateley • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Honestly, the original ‘Wizard of Oz’ is so iconic anything and everything trying to siphon off of it, including this new film knockoff, looks trite and will pale in comparison. The new film looks bad and the omnipresent commercials, designed to showcase the film in the best possible light, do not help at all. I hope it flops so no one will try this again. In this this age of Hollywood creative bankruptcy remaking (or revisiting) old movies is the lazy trend replacing creative thinking and filmmaking. Because this new Oz film epitomizes this lazy, vacuous trend it should fail.

Reggie Van Luster • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Are you aware that L. Frank Baum wrote over a dozen books set in the world of Oz? As long as they’re not remaking the 1939 film, I don’t mind if a Hollywood studio wants to make a new visit to Oz.

Jay • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Okay, Oz the Great and Powerful is a prequel to the original novel, not the movie! Why is that not clear already?

dee123 • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Cause’ people are idiots.

Chris • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

It may pale in comparison, but to suggest they shouldn’t touch the property at all is silly. And they didn’t remake The Wizard of Oz, they’re simply exploring another storyline for today’s audience. It doesn’t look all that bad, either….I’m looking forward to seeing it at some point.

Manuel • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Should be a hit, but globally not as much as Alice (2010). As you rightly pointed out, Alice is internationally a much better known story than The Wizard of Oz (on German TV the film title mentioned neither a wizard nor Oz). And in addition Alice in Wonderland had not only Tim Burton and Johnny Depp but also offered 3D at a time when (I believe) audience curiosity was at a peak and many had not yet experienced it.

Daniel Garrett Irwin • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Yes, but it will also be burned by critics. They did the same thing to other Joe Roth productions “Alice in Wonderland” and “Snow White and the Huntsman”. Box office will be higher than “White” but lower than “Wonderland”.

No sh1t • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

So you’re saying it’ll be bigger than a flop yet less successful than a megahit? Your powers of prediction are amazing.

rb_02 • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

As if Snow White was even close to a flop.

WD • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Alice in Wonderland became a mega hit when March was still seen as a dumping ground for movies. Snow White didn’t flop but it wasn’t a complete success factoring in a large P&A and budget. Oz The Great will have to keep up momentum to make a profit. The worldwide numbers can’t be as good as Disney hoped for a 3D movie.

Colin Farrell is box office poison. Studios would be bette off saving coin by hiring a television actor than going into business with him. Any clout he once had is long gone after a string of failures in the market.

May • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

The German title of ‘Oz: The Great and the Powerful’ is ‘Die fantastische Welt von Oz’. So Oz is mentioned in the German title.

walter • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Yup, Alice in Wonderland was basically riding in Avatar’s coattails. Oz may be a better movie than Alice but people in general are tired of 3D.

Lena • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

My kids are so excited for this movie as am I. Oz here we come!

Oliver • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

It was tracking at $100m+, then $90m+, now $80m+.

Still, it was never going to bomb. It will do fine, have a strong showing internationally and easily recoup. Unlike Jack and the Giant Slayer, it’s not a self-evidently bad idea, Disney have done a decent job of marketing it and it looks its production cost.

It might even surprise and have legs. Alice in Wonderland did amazingly well despite being an awful film and I have more faith in Raimi to deliver a watchable picture than Burton.

Dallas • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Baum’s original Oz books have been In the public domain for decades. How can Disney own the rights?

MexyMartini • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I thought that Disney gave up the sequel book rights after “Return to Oz,” and that they returned to public domain. All that Warners owns, is the 1939 film, and any images specifically created for that film (ruby slippers, specific set design, etc.). I checked at one of the official Oz sites……all original Baum books are said to now be in public domain. (Disney gave up it’s last book in 1986.) Some of the sequels by OTHER authors are still copyrighted.

Caroline-Genevieve • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Yes, WB owns the ideas and designs that are unique to the Wizard of Oz film and Disney had to avoid those specific ideas/items in this film. They include:

1. The ruby slippers. Baum’s book had them as silver slippers, but the movie-folks thought red would show up better in technicolor, so they changed it.

2. The green paint and distinctive chin wart for Margaret Hamilton’s Wicked Witch of the West. I understand they had to use a different tone/hue of green for RW’s character interpretation.

Andrew • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

But Baum died in 1919.
How long do the rights last for Disney?
I appreciate there is some unique copyright in 1939 film, inc ruby slippers, but not much.
Surely Oz is fair game for anyone very soon

Chris johnson • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Disney bought the film rights to Baum’s 12 sequels beginning in 1954. There were several LP’s released in the 1960’s and several TV and movie projects that never made it to the screen. (Jim Hill Media did a story on Disney’s history with the Oz projects in 2006 that is available online). The first Baum book and accompanying illustrations are in public domain but a judge at the 8th circuit decided to give Warner “character protection” under its copyright on the 1939 film. Warner filed a “trademark” registration on “The Great and Powerful OZ” last October one week after Disney did. Warner asserts that any reference to OZ elements (characters, settings etc) are references to the 1939 movie and that the Baum books are irrelevant.

MexyMartini • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Disney gave up the last book in 1986, after “Return to Oz.” The original Baum Oz books are now in public domain.

Sam • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Are u actually praising Alice in wonderland, that movie was horrible.

IsThisIt • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

It’s funny.

Because John Carter was still incredibly profitable. $32 mil profit just at box office.

Said the person who has no idea about the movie business. There’s a little thing called a marketing budget.

And even if we’re talking straight numbers, a 13 percent return is not “Incredibly profitable.”

Anonymous • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Factoring in marketing costs is the least thing wrong with his statement. Ideally you double the production budget in order to be on the way towards profitability. If you want to be in the black by the time a theatrical run is finished, you pretty much need double the marketing and production budget. John Carter had to make $700m WW just to hit the black theatrically. That is double the production and marketing budget ($250 + $100m).

Bob • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Ask any accountant in Hollywood. NO movie makes a profit. Guaranteed.

Warner Borg • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

“Whereas John Carter, which also cost $200M”

$200m? Yeah right. And the rest.

Chris • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I’m looking forward to seeing this. It’s the first film I’ve been interested in since, er, Gangster Squad (hopefully Oz turns out a little better).

mjrules • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Excellent news and I think the tracking will grow even more with each day in excitement for the opening (even if, it went back and forth before).

I feel this movie will break records around the world (hoping).

The Wizard of Oz is known by every generation in every country and it will help this movie as a prequel that nods to it, as well as the stars being well known (the Spider-Man trilogy and Rise of the Planet of the Apes means that Franco has an audience for blockbusters which should help too).

So exciting, can’t wait… It’s been a long time for an Oz movie…

Tony • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

The Wizard of Oz is not known in every country. Actually it’s really popular only in USA. Mila Kunis herself had never heard of this story until she was offered a role in the movie.

jj • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

This is true. My friends in France and England did not grow up with the MGM film playing every year on TV and have no idea what it’s about.

Remote Patrolled • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Seriously – your friends in England have never heard of the Wizard of Oz? Are they like 4 or something?

I’m a 39 year old Brit and very familiar with the original. It repeats often on Brit TV and is very much a part of the culture.

Pauliert • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I find that a really strange comment. Wizard of Oz was shown very year in the UK when I was growing up and believe me I watched it every year. It was certainly shown yet again last Christmas. I think I would be hard pressed to find anyone in the UK who hasn’t seen it let alone heard of it.

Oliver • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

The Wizard of Oz is very well known in the UK.

Just look at Wicked, which has been hugely successful on the West End.

mjrules • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Well, I think the below comments make it 100% clear that at least in the UK, it is well known.

Now, I’m going to sound off about the box office numbers …..

Regarding, the 5th box office numbers for Oz, so glad it broke the $80.3M domestic mark. Let’s hope come Monday, its still correct or slightly more and well done for being the third highest debut too.

In terms of international numbers, I’m little bit disappointed (@jj and @Tony both make sense with the numbers that just came in), but hopefully, it has long legs to make this a monster hit -early days, and the total on Monday might be different i.e. much more.

As for all the negative abuse received by James Franco in particular by certain critics (because they had their own agenda, in which particular star they want to promote more) and this movie in general, the overseas $69.9M + domestic means $150.2M worldwide is not bad at all. It’s very very good…. Again, considering the critics tried hard attacking this movie (at least the audience made-up their own minds to watch or not).

“This Oz wizardry was less appealing with James Franco who struggles to open box office solo.”, sorry not sure what Nikki is going on about, but the constant dig on Franco by the critics makes me laugh even more that this movie did so well. James Franco is a movie star and winning, who can open a movie with his name period.

Yes, you have the key ingredient of the Oz Brand, Sam Raimi and the other key stars but as him playing Oz (brilliant); I’m so glad that this movie has started of very well in the box office.

Again, with with Spiderman franchise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes plus now Oz he’s had three great blockbuster HITS, which mixes it up with his indie flicks or smaller movies = excellent.

Sorry, long but just proud of Sam Raimi, James Franco and everyone involved, truly a great movie.

Bob • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Sorry, but I have to disagree on Spiderman. James Franco was NOT instrumental in the “HITS” success of the first three Spiderman movies.

m • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

The same naysayers poo-poo’ed Wicked the musical and look how that turned out. Oz is going to be HUGE. It might not be any good, but it’s going to be HUGE.

Jason • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Talk about asinine underestimates. Guys, OZ will clear $100-million this coming weekend, and will eventually gross nearly a billion $ worldwide. How can you be so clueless regarding the powerful draw that the OZ mythology has on the American public, in particular?

Alan B • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Who hasn’t heard of the Great and Powerful Oz? Or the Wicked Witch of the West? Or Glinda the Good Witch? This is a mythology that people not only KNOW, but they also LOVE from their childhood. It’s stunning that some people don’t know the difference between a film based on a fairytale that people MIGHT know but not particularly care about on any deep level, and a film based on one of the most cherished and iconic films OF ALL TIME. I agree Disney are underselling the film so – the weekend after – they can say, “Oh look, even we didn’t appreciate the full magnitude of the public’s love for Baum, blah, blah, blah …” It’s such a brilliant concept that ALL commercial screenwriters should be kicking themselves that they didn’t come up with it.

Tony • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Powerful draw on American public but not any other public. To make over $1 billion worldwide, Oz must make at least over $700 million overseas. It will make $200-250M domestically, maybe $300M. I don’t see how it could make over $700M in other countries where almost no one knows the story.

Pedro • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I live in Brazil. We all here know the story.

I bet at other countries they do too.

Everyone knows Oz • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

That’s not true Tony, I grew up in Romania and I read one of the books and I’ve seen the original film many times, it’s on TV every year. All the people I grew up with have seen the film. Oz is very well known all over the world.

JJ • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

The movie will be big. Period. Open big, close big, final profits big. Oz is a rich universe for storytelling and has a HUGE fan base. Throw in some Oscar winners/nominees and you’ve got a fan favorite ready to open.

After the success of Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings and Twilight I’ve been wondering when Hollywood would step back and return to one of the originals. This is a franchise waiting to happen and I hope there’s a big screen special effects extravaganza of ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’. Yes I too LOVE the Judy Garland musical adaptation but it’s not a complete adaptation of the original book.

I haven’t been to the movies all year but this I will be seeing!

Mark K. • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Wonderland more recognizable than Oz? I don’t know about that. Hip, young cast…James Franco a funny casting idea as the young Frank Morgan who was as clueless in the movie as Franco often plays…the Wizard as slacker…Raimi…this will hit it out of the park, won’t it? Maybe not into the bleachers or put out any lights…but even if it’s not good probably has a long and prosperous life ahead of it.

John G. • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Saw a screening on the Disney lot this weekend. The movie is visually stunning with a simply, easily understandable story. It’s going to give Disney a license to print money, unfortunately.

Jay • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Oh come on! If Disney can print money, we’re that much closer to King of the Elves getting made, finally.

maryland • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Took my 12 YO grandson to see JACK this weekend. Very surprised – it’s actually a good movie! But the marketing campaign was horrible! Made it look cheap and shlocky. It’s not. All the money was spent in the right places.

I agree. JACK was amazing, well made and on a Cinemark XD screen absolutely breath-taking. Every dime spent was on the screen. Comparing ALICE IN WONDERLAND to JACK is like comparing PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

Wicked • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

“All the money was spent in the right places.”

Since they clearly bungled the marketing for Jack, I’d argue that the money was NOT spent in the right places.

Reggie Van Luster • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

You are confused.

PJ • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Asked my kids if they had any interest in seeing this, and it was a resounding NO. And for one reason only: James Franco. If it had starred Johnny Depp, yes.

CJS • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

@PJ – I agree with your kids. I loathe James Franco. I did see the 4D promo that they are running at California Adventure, and the 3D aspect is incredible.

Brenda Maxx • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I agree with you on J. Franco, NOT on J. Depp. Considering the depth, and love the posters had for Sebastian Stan, on his portrayl of the Madhatter on OUAT, he would have been my first, and ONLY choice for the young Frank Morgan.

However, it will be the familiarity of the story, and visuals that will bring in the numbers, maybe?

Ripsnorter • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

It might be tracking $80+M but the hot air is going to come out of this balloon very quickly. (Yes, I have seen it).

bizbang • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Yes, most Americans can afford it (though we choose to go less often than we used to). About a year ago THE HUNGER GAMES grossed 440M in DBO. If it’s true that the OZ tracking shows a decline from what would be a 100M opening to an 80M opening, and the decline took place as people saw ads and trailers, that’s interesting.

orlando • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

@bizbang – THE HUNGER GAMES did’nt do quite 440M domestic, more like about 410M domestic, but that’s still a fantatsic number no film will approach this year until “IRON MAN 3″.

mileshigh • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

This movie looks lifeless, lame and just very mediocre! The cast reeks of 2010 Oscar contenders desperate for a paycheck. And Mila Kunis looks foolish wearing the Lady GaGa hat. Disney spent $300 million on budget including P&A and that might be hard to make a profit because it cost so much!

Fucking Studio Plant • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Believe you me: Disney is ecstatic with these returns. You’re either not in the movie biz, or you’re a bitter screenwriter who’s never been produced.

Jack • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

Wilbur, as great as the 1939 film is, as the article states, there are 13 Oz books.

Baum wrote fourteen Oz books (I’ve read them all). There are also twenty-six official sequels written by other authors that add up to the “Famous Forty.” Plus several other peripherally related Baum books like “Sky Island” and “Zixi of Ix.” Disney is not going to lack for material if they want to keep going.

Marc5 • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

I knew this was going to be huge the moment I saw the first trailer. But, I’m feeling less and less enthused. I wonder if others are feeling the same. The new trailers that they are adding are less satifying than the initial hook. They are not as sharp and impactful. And the posters with James Franco standing in the middle of three women in assorted brightly colored gowns is giving me the heebee-geebees. Is this going to be the suspenseful, exciting, and fun family outing the first trailer suggests it’s going to be? Or is it another Disney exercise in preaching acceptance of perversity? I starting to feel a hidden agenda is being covered up in the trailers? Disney is less and less trustworthy as an entertainment unit.

Ripsnorter • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

To answer your questions in the order that you pose them, Marc5:
Is this going to be the suspenseful, exciting, and fun family outing the first trailer suggests it’s going to be? No.
Or is it another Disney exercise in preaching acceptance of perversity? Yes.

Underground Anthem TX • on Mar 10, 2013 7:30 am

“Or is it another exercise in Disney preaching acceptance of perversity?”
You, sir, are insane. Thanks for letting us know.